Skip to content

Richmond newspaper welcomes Redskins to town with one-sided support of team name

Getty_S_051013_Redskins Getty Images

In roughly two months, the Washington Redskins will open training camp in Richmond, Virginia.  And the local newspaper is rolling out the red carpet in the best possible way.

Paul Woody of the Richmond Times-Dispatch has penned a one-sided article characterizing the team’s name as non-offensive.  The support comes from three Native Americans who say they’ve got no problem with the name.

“It doesn’t bother me,” Robert Green, chief of the Patawomeck Tribe in Virginia, told Woody. “About 98 percent of my tribe is Redskins fans, and it doesn’t offend them, either.”

“I’m a Redskins fan, and I don’t think there’s any intention for [the nickname] to be derogatory,” said Kevin Brown, chief of the Pamunkey Tribe of Virginia.  “The majority of the people in my tribe don’t have a problem with it. There are a few who do, and we respect their feelings.”

Of course, Woody didn’t bother to find any of the “few who do” for comment as to why they have a “problem” with the name.  Instead, Woody found someone else to express support for the name.

“I don’t have an issue with it,” G. Anne Richardson, chief of Virginia’s Rappahannock Tribe, said.  “There are so many more issues that are important for the tribe than to waste time on what a team is called.  We’re worried about real things, and I don’t consider that a real thing.

“We’re more worried about our kids being educated, our people housed, elder care and the survival of our culture.  We’ve been in that survival mode for 400 years.  We’re not worried about how some ball team is named.”

The Redskins, who previously have seized upon the lingering high school teams that use the name as support for the notion that there’s nothing wrong with it, likely will be pointing to Woody’s article as further proof that all is well.  But Woody’s decision to harvest comments only from Native Americans who are fans of the team and/or who believe Native Americans have far bigger fish to fry doesn’t represent the full range of views on the topic, and it’s misleading for him to provide only one side of the issue.

But at least he’s treating Richmond’s future guests far better than the way the folks who arrived as guests of the Native Americans treated their hosts.

Permalink 70 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Rumor Mill, Washington Redskins
70 Responses to “Richmond newspaper welcomes Redskins to town with one-sided support of team name”
  1. vgferenzi says: May 15, 2013 10:39 AM

    I guess we could name a team a derogatory term for Hispanics or African Americans as long as we find some people who don’t care….

    There are some terms which initially had different connotations and now some people find offensive and some don’t, there are some that are more encompassing to a variety of populations and are therefore less “bigoted” if still distasteful.

    This isn’t the Florida State Seminoles, or Chief Illiniwek. There was never a “Redskin” tribe. This term is, and always has been, offensive and intended to be offensive.

    This is one of the few occasions where there is no other side of the coin, if you think “Redskins” is okay…you’re either stupid or a racist.

  2. hasasimo says: May 15, 2013 10:42 AM

    If you think Redskins is not OK you either can’t read or refuse to do the research. The term his historically neutral, and there are countless interviews with Native Americans who are honored by the name and offended that ignorant non-Native Americans are speaking on their behalf.

  3. jiveturkeygobbler says: May 15, 2013 10:48 AM

    I spent a year or so on a reservation in Minnesota working with the Ojibwe tribe. There were more Redskins and Chiefs fans than Vikings fans, and it wasn’t even close.

  4. jaxcliff says: May 15, 2013 10:56 AM

    Why would you name your team with the intention of being derogatory? Basically, you wouldn’t. The naming of the team as “Redskins” is a tribute. You don’t name your team the “Poodles” or “Kittens” or “Gerbils” because those names don’t convey power or honor. Likewise, “Redskins” isn’t a derogatory term except to those in the professional victim industry.

  5. romosmicrodongs says: May 15, 2013 11:01 AM

    and anyone who thinks the name is racist obviously doesn’t know how endearing and respectful the name truly is. go look up the fight song. tell me if it speaks of tradition bravery and courage, or if it speaks of reservations and savages.

  6. fargovikesfan says: May 15, 2013 11:01 AM

    Maybe its just me, but why would someone consider a sports team name as derogatory? You have thousands of people cheering on the team on a weekly basis, buying merchandise and other items in a show of support and loyalty. Hell if you asked alot of them, they probably wouldn’t even know what a “Redskin” refers to except that its a football team. The only ones that have a problem with it are the true racists that want to play the victim card in order to advance whatever views they have. THEY are the short sighted ones that are prejudice and closed minded. If its something they don’t like, then noone should have it either. You don’t see people standing outside the stadium at Notre Dame protesting the useage of the term “Fighting Irish”, which is no less derogatory or “hostile and abusive” than Redskins, or Fighting Sioux, or Fighting Illini, or any number of other names that have come under scrutiny

  7. titansbro says: May 15, 2013 11:01 AM

    If the term was always, or ever for that matter, a derogatory term for Native Americans, then why would a bunch of good ole boys from Virginny have named themselves this term? This is such a stupid argument. It’s not used in the context that Indians have red skin, it’s used because they painted their faces red when going into battle & thus was seen as fierce and intimidating. THAT is why the term was chosen. Why would that be offensive? I’m not even a Redskins fan & I’m about as liberal as they come by the way. I’m also a small percentage Cherokee, small percentage. Dan Snyder really should release a report on how the name was derived & why it was chosen. It won’t stop the idiots but it would help perception.

  8. bmoreravens1012013 says: May 15, 2013 11:04 AM

    Just change it to Deadskins like most people call them anyway. There you have it…..problem solved .

  9. CKL says: May 15, 2013 11:11 AM

    If a story took the opposing view, finding three natives who hated the name, would that paper be called out for not presenting the other side? Probably not as the battle cry by a lot of people would be something along the lines of “there’s no reason to give a voice to and be tolerant of bigots”. I’ve heard that many many times on other politically charged topics.

  10. stayclassyasheville says: May 15, 2013 11:11 AM

    The name Redskins has to be replaced.
    Redskins is a racial slur!

    If we use the same moronic logic that supporters of the name redskins use, then other racial slurs would not be offensive either. It’s a pathetic excuse.

  11. gweez76 says: May 15, 2013 11:14 AM

    Let’s be real, when people hear the word “Redskins” what do 99.9% of them think of?

    A football team. End of discussion.

    More people are offended by the name Liberal or Conservative.

  12. floratiotime says: May 15, 2013 11:16 AM

    Having spent some time in Richmond … you would have to look very hard to find a more racist town. They’re really not ones to talk.

  13. shawkfan51 says: May 15, 2013 11:18 AM

    This site is becoming less about reporting NFL news and updates and more about Florio’s personal soapbox. It’d be nice if more time was spent on reporting the latest news and rumors and less time was spent by Florio trying to convince us of what he thinks we should care about, whether it’s post after post about the impact of the “Fail Mary” in December and January (months after the fact) or his newfound obsession with trying to get the Redskins to change their team name. Seriously, start up a blog if you want to complain about perceived social injustice and just stick to reporting the news here, please!

  14. parlett316 says: May 15, 2013 11:19 AM

    White people trying to tell other white people why they should be offended news at 11

  15. mccontrary says: May 15, 2013 11:20 AM

    Here’s a suggested name. I think this will work:
    Washington Palefaces

    That about sums it up.

  16. wecomefromthestars says: May 15, 2013 11:20 AM

    This issue is about Mind Control. (some of you just took off running, or are preparing statements to attempt to discredit anyone who would dare bring up that term. Sorry.)

    If it is ok to call people by their SKIN COLOR, then it is opening gateways to treat them differently- often with much less respect. Need proof? Go digging into some real history, not the washed history books we get slapped with during our “education”.

    Many of us just do not realize (and never will) how important THOUGHTS are. Skin color need not be in your thoughts as you determine a peoples’ worth. Keeping this name on a high-profile NFL team, absolutely keeps skin color in your thoughts. If you feel the name Redskins is ok, then you have been successfully desensitized to an important issue. Who, exactly, performed this action on your mind?

  17. kingcrusher says: May 15, 2013 11:22 AM

    So why is it we have no problem claiming victory in polls when we get a poll of 500 people to represent a nation in its views (certainly not realistic), yet when a chief of a tribe says to not worry about it, we make a big deal that he didn’t include that 2% in his speech?
    The bottom line is that people just don’t care. There’s no problem with the name, and that figure of the chief’s is accurate, probably only 2% of the ENTIRE population have problem with is. Let it rest. They are not changing it, and I am in agreement with that 98% that it’s NO BIG DEAL.

  18. twilson962 says: May 15, 2013 11:23 AM

    The Gov. of Virginia is Bob McDonnell who has worked with, and supported, former VA Gov, & US Senator George Allen… who is the brother of… guess who??? Bruce Allen! The Skins GM!! Both are sons of former Skins coach George Allen.

    I’m a HUGE Redskins fan. I do not think the Skins should change their name.

    But I’m not surprised by a Richmond newspaper rolling out the welcome mat.

  19. vgferenzi says: May 15, 2013 11:27 AM

    I love how people back this up with a basic logical fallacy that most grade school children understand isn’t true.

    i.e. [people from the area are rednecks, rednecks are racists, people from the area like the redskins, redskins isn't derogatory because even racists like it]

    or

    [people cheer for the redskins, people cheer for what they like, you wouldn't be derogatory towards something you like, redskins must not be derogatory]

    That means that any team name ever was okay because people cheered for them. So lets bring back the Peekin Chinks, the Swastikas, the Fighting Whities, the Dangerous Darkies, the Crackers, the Wahpeton WOPs, etc…

    There are a lot of uneducated racist people in here who don’t even realize they’re attacking the straw man because they aren’t smart enough to see why they’re wrong.

  20. bigdaddyraven says: May 15, 2013 11:28 AM

    It’s like when discussing the Confederate Flag someone always find some African American down South who doesn’t have a problem with it. You can burn all that Redskin paraphernalia along with that rag of a flag!

  21. lightningbuggs says: May 15, 2013 11:31 AM

    The needs of many outweigh the needs of a few.

    As has been said many times over and over, this is simply a matter of a small group, many of which aren’t even Native American, going on a non-sensical crusade.

    They treat being offended like it’s their job.

  22. bunkslurpscrabmustard says: May 15, 2013 11:35 AM

    Comments like these from Native American individuals should solidify their status. No matter the name change or not they’ll still be a loser franchise that lives off their 3 decade old accomplishments.

  23. gadgetdawg says: May 15, 2013 11:36 AM

    A Virginia newspaper decides to write a story on the Redskins. Being a Virginia newspaper, they decide that the best (and easiest) way to gauge Native American opinion on the name is to call the few Native American Indian Chiefs whose numbers happen to be in the old Rolodex. These Chiefs (being Washington fans) happen to be fans and support their team.

    I don’t see where this article is any surprise. It would not surprise me in the least if the closer to DC you get, the more support that Washington has in this.

  24. 1590t says: May 15, 2013 11:42 AM

    Once again – please put this non-issue to bed. Report on something that really matters.

  25. whodatnate says: May 15, 2013 11:44 AM

    Red+(Scientific name for skin) =
    The Red Epidermis’

    Meet in the middle… problem solved.

  26. ducknichols50 says: May 15, 2013 12:00 PM

    I hope they change it to the Washington Whiteskins. as a white man, it would not bother me or offend me in anyway.

    this is ridiculous. We are living in 2013, not 1465. No one views that as offensive other than the people from the “i want to be offended” team.

  27. muskyhunter2542 says: May 15, 2013 12:06 PM

    Just let it be!!! Overblown BS story. The Redskins are The Redskins, and always be The Redskins.

  28. qdog112 says: May 15, 2013 12:11 PM

    The capitol of the Confederate States of America – Richmond. Did he include the people asked who did find it offensive? Do you believe 100% of thgose questioned said it’s OK?

    Does a bigot or racist really think he’s a bigot or a racist? Of course not because he can justify each racist act with something – anything.

    There is noway Redskins is not a derogatorily term. They may as well call them the Washington Savages or the Washington Scalpers. The point is the same. Those saying it is honorable, certainly don’t know history.

    How about the Boston Paddys? Cool with that?

  29. psps23 says: May 15, 2013 12:13 PM

    Diehard Redskin fan here. Have lived this franchise, essentially, since birth.

    The lengths that proponents of the team name go to provide excuses for its nature are unbelievable, and quite frankly, embarrassing. Yes there are some natives that have no issue with the name. There are others that believe there are bigger issues to deal with. But there are also plenty who do find it rightfully and logically offensive.

    The term “Redskin” is not “historically neutral.” Some Native Americans HAVE used it as a term of endearment, but the term has most definitely also been used to categorize a group of people that were, at times, systematically hunted, murdered, and forcibly displaced from their homes and lands during an era where they, like blacks, were thought of as lesser beings.

    The willful ignorance of these undeniable facts is absolutely stunning to me as a member of this fan base. You want to keep the name? Fine. Then stand up and say that your devotion to the Washington Redskins’ tradition is more important than the feelings of those reasonably offended by the name. That’s your prerogative. Just don’t stand up and claim that because a portion of a given population says something that its claim is an absolute truth.

  30. irishnativeson says: May 15, 2013 12:14 PM

    I am 1/4 Native American from the Pacific Northwest and I’ve never cared for the Redskins franchise. Most of the people I know that don’t care for them either called them the Foreskins.

  31. freepretzels says: May 15, 2013 12:16 PM

    I like the idea that the Native American community is dealing with worse issues than the name of the football team. If that’s all they have to worry about, then things have really improved for them.

  32. catquick says: May 15, 2013 12:19 PM

    Fighting Irish? I’m not offended.

  33. rundmc81 says: May 15, 2013 12:19 PM

    The thing that they should have polled Richmonders about is how happy they are that the Skins are comming in the first place. Richmond wants a Pro Sports team, a real sports team. Not these clowns.

  34. firesnyder says: May 15, 2013 12:23 PM

    Its not a slur. I can’t believe how a small group of people has created this argument. The name “Redskins” was created to project an image of a face-painted warrior going into battle.

    It’s ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS that 0.5% of Native Indians find “Redskins” offensive, and it is even more ridiculous that small groups like this get as much media attention as they do.

    Come on.

  35. thegreatgabbert says: May 15, 2013 12:24 PM

    Well, if the indigenous chiefs are named Robert, Kevin, and G. Anne, what would they have to complain about?

  36. elscorcho5000 says: May 15, 2013 12:30 PM

    Hail to the Redskins!
    Hail Victory!
    Braves on the Warpath!
    Fight for old D.C.!

    Does that sound derogatory?!
    Why would a team name itself after an insulting term?! All the whiners argue that there would never be a team called the Ni**ers. EXACTLY! Because nobody would use an insulting, derogatory term as a team nickname.

  37. baddegg says: May 15, 2013 12:33 PM

    vgferenzi says: May 15, 2013 10:39 AM

    This is one of the few occasions where there is no other side of the coin, if you think “Redskins” is okay…you’re either stupid or a racist.

    ——————

    And this kind of thinking is called: “fascism”

  38. skinsfaninnebraska says: May 15, 2013 12:36 PM

    Languages evolve, words change their meanings.

    Even if “Redskin” was used at one time in the distant past by some people as a derogatory term, it most certainly hasn’t been used like that for many decades. Today, and for the last 80-some years, it has meant “The Washington Redskins”, an NFL franchise.

    To compare this hypothetically with naming teams using current racial slurs, like the “N-word” for example, is not relevant. Plenty of people have been and still do refer to African-Americans by that offensive name, so of course you wouldn’t use it for a sports franchise name.

    This is an issue that needs to be a non-issue, and it would be but for a few who perpetuate it.

  39. wolverine69 says: May 15, 2013 12:39 PM

    Just like you some ignorant blacks who think the word ni@@’er isn’t offensive and is even a term of endearment…IT’S CALLED IGNORNACE. So they found a few sellouts that will accept anything for a handshake and free seats..Most white people rarely see their own ignorance due to their privlidge. Being in power you rarley have to deal with….BUT THATS CHANGING WITH EVERY ELECTION, AS THEY SEE THEIR POWER, PRIVILEDGE SLIP AWAY…..according to most white folk racism doesnt exist…which is why they’ll never see REDSKINS…as racist, demeaning and offensive…..nor would i expect them to.

  40. tonashu says: May 15, 2013 12:48 PM

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Preston_Marshall#Racism

    I’ll just leave this right here for all those people who say the team wasn’t named to be racist. As it most certainly was.

  41. b3nz0z says: May 15, 2013 12:49 PM

    they could be the Maryland Beer-Overchargers

  42. freedomispopular says: May 15, 2013 12:52 PM

    “There are so many more issues that are important for the tribe than to waste time on what a team is called. We’re worried about real things, and I don’t consider that a real thing.”

    Wiser words were never spoken.

  43. jhig713 says: May 15, 2013 12:55 PM

    red·skin (rdskn)
    n. Offensive Slang
    Used as a disparaging term for a Native American.

    But I guess it’s no big deal.

  44. geefan1 says: May 15, 2013 12:58 PM

    I suppose they could change the name to the Bullets…

  45. skins4me says: May 15, 2013 1:06 PM

    bmoreravens1012013 says:
    May 15, 2013 11:04 AM
    Just change it to Deadskins like most people call them anyway. There

    Spoken like a true baltermoron!!!!

  46. dagonzalezesq says: May 15, 2013 1:10 PM

    Members of Native American tribes of the southwest used the term “buffalo soldier” in the late 1800s. These tribesmen referred to post-civil war, black Union soldiers assigned to the frontier. They called them buffalo soldiers because their skin was dark like the buffalo that was a staple of their way of life.

  47. kev86 says: May 15, 2013 1:10 PM

    Can’t you just take out the red part. The skins works.

  48. TheEmirOfGroofunkistan says: May 15, 2013 1:14 PM

    I think chief of Virginia’s Rappahannock Tribe, G. Anne Richardson, says it all:

    “There are so many more issues that are important for the tribe than to waste time on what a team is called. We’re worried about real things, and I don’t consider that a real thing.”

    It’s not a real thing.

  49. wcman says: May 15, 2013 1:34 PM

    This entire topic is completely irrelevant as always. It’s always the minority that is most vocal and that is the case here with people who think a teams nickname is somehow derogatory despite proof to the contrary.

    Here’s the bottom line: Snyder has publicly stated they are not now, nor ever, going to change the name of the team. Let it go, get off the politically correct soapbox and talk about football. The end.

  50. garyhd01 says: May 15, 2013 1:49 PM

    when teams choose their name the process is different some teams have fans vote others leave it to management how can the redskins name be a priority when the more important question should be how could new Orleans rename their team the PELICANS now that’s an issue lol

  51. devcal says: May 15, 2013 1:56 PM

    “But at least he’s treating Richmond’s future guests far better than the way the folks who arrived as guests of the Native Americans treated their hosts.”

    – real fn talk!!

  52. siggtacular says: May 15, 2013 2:11 PM

    Washington Warriors

  53. helix828 says: May 15, 2013 2:59 PM

    Hi. Member of the Onondaga tribe here. Like, from the rez. The vast majority of us are not offended, so please white people, feel free to find something else to complain about that doesn’t effect you.

    Also, get off my land!
    :)

  54. thirdistheworrd says: May 15, 2013 3:03 PM

    kingcrusher says: May 15, 2013 11:22 AM

    So why is it we have no problem claiming victory in polls when we get a poll of 500 people to represent a nation in its views (certainly not realistic), yet when a chief of a tribe says to not worry about it, we make a big deal that he didn’t include that 2% in his speech?
    _____
    To be fair, 8% object to the name, but you do make an excellent point about Gallup Polls. Gallup Polls are widely recognized as the world’s most accurate surveys, a basis for everything from Americans’ stance on gay marriage to the President’s approval rating.

    Surveying only Natives, the 2004 Annenberg Study used a sample size 200% larger than the average Gallup Poll (~5,000) to determine that 92% of Natives either approved of the name or were not bothered by it.

    Basically, criticizing an article for not mentioning the 8% who don’t support the name is as asinine as criticizing an article about the presidential election for not mentioning Ralph Nader.

  55. nagaswan says: May 15, 2013 3:07 PM

    The worst part is it gives actual racist people an excuse to be racist. Many of those people post here btw.

  56. nativeraider says: May 15, 2013 3:13 PM

    Being a Native American from California Ive never been offended by the name. I DO KNOW what the term “Redskin” means and is about. Its just a name but I do understand the people wanting to change it.

    I say IF they do change they should be called the Washington Warriors. They could use the same LOGO and it has th power and honor behind it. Teasm with the same name works ( SF Giants/Ny Giants, Sac Kings/LA Kings ect.)

  57. theclaim says: May 15, 2013 3:18 PM

    @welcomefromthestars
    Skin color need not be in your thoughts as you determine a peoples’ worth.
    ??? Agreed, but your statement is at best LOST, misplaced in the context you use as an example. In what article? At which game or event? Do you see or hear ANYONE associated with the team, a fan of the team or even just speaking about the team say ” The team name determines an entire people’s WORTH”? NEVER,! The debate is wether or not the term is in fact derogatory. Other than YOU I have NEVER even heard someone SAY it determines the value of Native Americans. Like my teenage son does you are arguing a point to attempt to show how clever and worldly you are. I suppose that’s to be expected from someone who thinks they are a space messenger.

  58. nativeraider says: May 15, 2013 3:20 PM

    “If it is ok to call people by their SKIN COLOR, then it is opening gateways to treat them differently- often with much less respect. Need proof? Go digging into some real history, not the washed history books we get slapped with during our “education”.”

    Most people think that when they are calling Natives “Redskins” its about the color of our skin but in reality it has to do with way back in history when they would make the Natives bleed and hunt them down for money/sport. Many people think that “scalping” is what Natives did but the “whites” did it 1st, they would sell their hair for $. But at the end of the day I know Snyder and company are not trying to be offensive with the name.

  59. rickinoklahoma says: May 15, 2013 3:35 PM

    So Paul Woody got three members of Non Federally recognized tribes to say they were ok with it. The Bureau of Indian Affairs keeps the list of Federally recognized Tribes. If your Tribe isn’t on there, you’re not an Indian. Just because you put your head in the oven doesn’t make you a biscuit, and just because you call yourself an Indian doesn’t make you one. Paul Woody can stick his column up his ethically challenged keister.

  60. Tuesday Morning Blog says: May 15, 2013 4:25 PM

    Dudes, the arguments for keeping the name are no good, especially not the one in the article for the reasons Florio points out. And people obviously care, or they wouldn’t make a fuss about it. (Likewise w/ the Cleveland Indians – go see what happens every opening day.) I don’t understand why there is this insistence upon shrugging our shoulders because some group of which we are not a part is being treated poorly; grow up and look past your own group identity for two seconds.

    Two more things. From what little research I’ve done, though I did some back in college, there is disagreement amongst different tribes on the use of Native American imagery in sports; and yet even of groups polled, nearly ALL of them (like 95%) are like, “Well, even if we’re cool with some, Redskins is pretty racist. That one’s not cool.” Second, nobody cares about the intentions of whoever came up with these images and names. Intentions don’t matter here, just like they don’t matter with sexual harassment in the workplace. What matters is how it’s perceived by the offended party. If you can’t understand that, you shouldn’t be in the conversation.

  61. Joseph Comizio says: May 15, 2013 4:32 PM

    The Redskins are named the Redskins because they moved from Boston where they were known as the Boston Braves. The reason they were known as the Braves was because they played in Braves Stadium – where the Boston Braves baseball team played. Once they moved to Fenway – where you guessed it – the Red Sox played. Now that the Braves had made the move to Fenway park, they appropriately changed their name to the Red Skins. See the original football helmet was made out of mole skin – so they became known as skins. Just like their baseball counterpart, they were named after the color of their helmets. The native American only came into play because it followed the franchise from the Braves to the renaming due to change in home field.

  62. dallascowboysdishingthereal says: May 15, 2013 8:12 PM

    It’s not meant in any derogatary manner at all. Who would pick a mascot that has a negative connatation? Doesn’t make sense.

    Of course there will be some who say they are offended by the name. My experience has been that the native americans I know are huge Redskin fans and would be annoyed if the name were changed.

  63. tincansailor981 says: May 15, 2013 8:20 PM

    Where’s the surprise? Richmond was the capital of the confederacy; they have experience with this sort of thing

  64. t8ertot says: May 15, 2013 9:53 PM

    Richmond also welcomed the Boston bomber to be buried in one of their cemeteries

  65. charger383 says: May 15, 2013 10:55 PM

    Redskins forever

  66. musicman495 says: May 16, 2013 12:43 AM

    So let’s have as many white people as possible tell us how many Native Americans constitute a quorum on this issue, OK? If these people interviewed are not enough, or live too close to DC, tell us how many and where Native Americans saying they have no problem with this would be enough the end this fixation? I am a Skins fan who personally would be fine if they changed the name. But please let us not, in the name of supposedly sticking up for Native Americans, denigrate those who are OK with the name as it is.

  67. the3taveren says: May 16, 2013 9:59 AM

    The meaning of words change over the years. Maybe, a century ago the term redskin was derogatory, but it hasn’t been used that way in the entire life span of any of the plaintiffs that are suing the Redskins. So during their lives they have never had to face that term being used in a disparaging way yet they are allowing themselves to be used as puppets for some other agenda.

    Hey that guy is gay! In the 50’s he was happy. Now he may be happy but that isn’t what that term means any more.

    I have to go home an key my birch out. When the Redskins first were established everyone would have know that that person had to go home and key his female canine out. Not so much now!

    Simply put, the name is no longer used to offend, insult, or in any way disparage any group of people!

  68. thirdistheworrd says: May 16, 2013 12:33 PM

    And, for my next trick, I will end this argument.

    Just Google “Native American Chief Talks About Redskins”. If these guys would post that, the whole issue could be over. Unfortunately, there’s way too much money in non-Natives BSing around on the internet.
    Stephen Dodson is a hereditary chief of the Aleutian People, here are some of his choice quotes:

    ““People are speaking for Native Americans that aren’t Native American…we had a big problem with all the things that were coming out [of the discussion]…they were basically saying that we were offended, our people were offended, and they were misrepresenting the Native American nation… Redskin’ isn’t something given to us by the white man or the blue eyes, it was something in the Native American community that was taken from us. [It’s] used also as a term of respect, because that’s how we were. We respected each other with that term… It’s not degrading in one bit and that’s why I sent you guys an email. It just bothered me that somebody would twist something so negatively when it’s a positive.”

    “[Much of the discussion over the Redskins name is led by non-Natives, and that makes me] Irritated. Irritated is a polite term to say… When you have people trying to represent our nation, you should be from our nation. Don’t represent our nation if you don’t even have an ounce of blood in you.”

    Well, I think that about wraps that up.

    Dodson certainly doesn’t speak for all Natives, but his opinion about who should be speaking for all Natives seems very conclusive.

    Goddamn, does anybody remember when this site was about football?

  69. musicman495 says: May 16, 2013 3:42 PM

    I wonder if part of the difference in how this matter is seen among Native Americans is a difference in socioeconomic or education status. Those who are offended and are part of the lawsuits trying to force the name change are by and large college educated, whereas some of those who are quoted who are not offended are non-college educated. No other racial or ethnic group is a monolith, there is no reason Native Americans should be assumed to be either.

  70. musicman495 says: May 16, 2013 3:48 PM

    rickinoklahoma says: May 15, 2013 3:35 PM

    So Paul Woody got three members of Non Federally recognized tribes to say they were ok with it. The Bureau of Indian Affairs keeps the list of Federally recognized Tribes. If your Tribe isn’t on there, you’re not an Indian. Just because you put your head in the oven doesn’t make you a biscuit, and just because you call yourself an Indian doesn’t make you one. Paul Woody can stick his column up his ethically challenged keister.
    ——————————–
    The list of Federally recognized Tribes has to do with receiving federal government benefits from the BLA and Dept. of Interior, not in determining definitively who is and is not an Indian. There are many Tribes recognized by individual states, and it so happens that the tribes mentioned in this story are all recognized by the State of Virgina.

    So in the name of not insulting Indians with a sports team name, someone in Oklahoma wants to tell three Native Virginians they are not real Indians? Nice.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!